Global Warning is Very Real

[jpn of Seattle]

Sorry guy. Where information comes from is completely irrelavent. Suggesting that information is not correct based on nothing more than the source constitutes one of the more pitiful logical fallacies known as a circumstantial ad homenim. It is one of those fallacies that highlights the fact that you don't have any defense for your postion at all.

Palerider the flip-flopper. Notice how, when it concerns his posts, the sourcing is irrelevant. Actually, what Palerider says is that the source is "completely irrelavent" (sic).

But when it comes to other people's sources, suddenly the source is all-important:

You provided a blog. Hardly an answer.

He dodges, he weaves. Watch Palerider twist and turn as he pulls out all the stops to avoid answering direct challenges to his absurd position.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Nope, I mean the arctic ice.

A report in the July issue " Journal of Climate" shows that errors in an earlier study created the misimpression that Arctic ice was thinning.

An abstract from the Journal of Climate reads: "Reports based on submarine sonar data have suggested Arctic sea ice has thinned nearly by half in recent decades. Such rapid thinning is a concern for detection of global change and for Arctic regional impacts. Including atmospheric time series, ocean currents and river runoff into an ocean–ice–snow model show that the inferred rapid thinning was unlikely.

The problem stems from under sampling. Varying winds that readily redistribute Arctic ice create a recurring pattern whereby ice shifts between the central Arctic and peripheral regions, especially in the Canadian sector. Timing and tracks of the submarine surveys missed this dominant mode of variability. Although model-derived overall thinning from the 1960s to the 1990s was less than hitherto supposed, there is also indication of accelerated thinning during the early–mid-1990s"

In the authors words, "the volume estimated in 2000 is close to the volume estimated in 1950."

Though the earlier flawed study received wide coverage by the media this latest study has been largely ignored.

This article was written in July of 2007? I ask that because you didn't bother to provide a link. From what it says, it sounds more as though it was written in 2000 or 2001. Which is perhaps why it sounds so jarringly at odds with current reality. Maybe you found it on another of your right-wing denier web sites and no context was provided, so you just assumed it was current. Just for future reference, you may want to consider that providing the link helps clarify little issues like this. Could it be that you're embarrassed where the link is from?

I guess you don't follow this issue much, because you seem to be completely unaware of recent developments in the Arctic. Let me get you up to speed:

Arctic sea ice has now surpassed all previous records for the lowest absolute minimum summer extent. The "stunning record low" of 4.13 million square kilometers was recorded by satellite images on September 16, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The previous record, 5.32 million square kilometers, was measured on September 20-21, 2005.

The minimum for 2007 is smaller by 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) than the previous low, roughly the size of Texas and California combined, or nearly five United Kingdoms. This year also saw the extended opening of the Northwest Passage through islands north of Canada for the first time.

On Baffin Island, across from Greenland in Nunavut, Canada, the loss of ice and permafrost is affecting daily life of native Inuits. Winter hunting and fishing is limited severely by loss of ice. In summer, permafrost is thawing, creating more erosion, and ice that once covered the surrounding mountains year long is nearly all melted. Elders in the village of Pangnirtung report that winds have shifted and winters are getting much shorter -- observations that weather records confirm. http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/arctic.html

We're aren't talking about thinning. We're talking about disappearing.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

Palerider, once again your stumbling attempt to defend the indefensible provided me with an opportunity to demonstrate how large of a problem this is and why. Thanks. Boy, you just don't know when to quit digging holes for yourself. You're about halfway to China, son.

I should be worried about a parrott's assessment of my credibility?

Oh, again with the name-calling, a sure sign of desperation. And this from a guy who yells "ad hominem attack!" at the first sign of lack of courtesy. Such inconsistency...

You can't refute the paper so you can stop your whining and move on to other topics.

Yes indeed, no doubt you'd love to move on to other topics, since this one has done nothing but demonstrate over and over how utterly and embarrassingly misinformed you are on it.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Here's another telling analysis of the shrinking sea ice at the North Pole:

September ice extent from 1979 to 2007 shows an obvious decline. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. --http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html

You'll never find stuff like this on the Rush Limbaugh Climate Research Center website!

Here's some related findings:

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2007) — A new NASA study has found that in 2005 the Arctic replaced very little of the thick sea ice it normally loses and replenishes each year. Replenishment of this thick, perennial sea ice each year is essential to the maintenance and stability of the Arctic summer ice cover. --http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070403142727.htm

Abrupt Ice Retreat Could Produce Ice-free Arctic Summers By 2040
ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2006) — The recent retreat of Arctic sea ice is likely to accelerate so rapidly that the Arctic Ocean could become nearly devoid of ice during summertime as early as 2040, according to new research published in the December 12 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
--http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061212091828.htm

 

[9sublime]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in this report.

Unlike you I'm not going to play scientist and make believe that I have the sufficient qualificiations, expertise and equipment to make such a sure decision.

 

[palerider]

The previous record, 5.32 million square kilometers, was measured on September 20-21, 2005.

Like I said, your study is a scam. The numbers were taken at the end of the summer. Of course it is going to be thinner at the end of summer. People like you are why the myth continues. You will believe anything so long as it fits your political agenda no matter how idiotic it may be.

You still haven't answered to the ever growing number of big name EX AGW believers.

 

[palerider]

Unlike you I'm not going to play scientist and make believe that I have the sufficient qualificiations, expertise and equipment to make such a sure decision.

You should know by now that I don't "pretend" anything.

 

[Popeye]

Like I said, your study is a scam. The numbers were taken at the end of the summer. Of course it is going to be thinner at the end of summer. People like you are why the myth continues. You will believe anything so long as it fits your political agenda no matter how idiotic it may be.

You still haven't answered to the ever growing number of big name EX AGW believers.

If researched long enough, I'm sure virtually all of your "scientists" have connections to the fossil fuel industry in one way or another. For example, Tad Murty and David Bellamy are both associated with the Fraser Inst. a conservative think tank which counts among it's funders Exxon Mobil.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Like I said, your study is a scam. The numbers were taken at the end of the summer. Of course it is going to be thinner at the end of summer. People like you are why the myth continues. You will believe anything so long as it fits your political agenda no matter how idiotic it may be.

You're hilarious! Really, your lack of seriousness on this issue is a great source of amusement to me. I look forward to your responses each time!

"The numbers were taken at the end of the summer," you note, and therefore the it's obviously thinner, because it's always thinner at the end of the summer!
Brilliant response! Hilarious! Seriously, even if I was appointed by God Above to stubbornly refuse to admit that global warming was real, no matter what the evidence, I never would have dreamed up that one!

The ingenuity! The resourcefulness! You're a genius of obfiscation! You really should look for work with the Bush administration.

Of course the numbers are taken at the end of summer, or, more accurately, at the ice sheet's minimal level for that year. Then they're compared to the previous year's level. And then they chart the same thing over all the years for which they have data. In point of fact, the measurements are taken continually. They'd have to be, in order to create the chart I provided above, and again directly below.

But you must know this. You can't be that stupid. So you're just pulling my leg, right? I mean, this graph alone, provided previously, torpedos your response:

Not to mention this one:

See 2007 at the bottom right, in red?

And the best you can come up with is a dopey "they took the measurement at the end of summer." Hysterical!

I can't wait for your next response! Let me guess: "They have the charts upside down!"

By the way, I see that you didn't bother to come up with a link to your report in the Journal of Climate. It must have been for 2000 after all, eh? Oops! It must be SO embarrassing to be you!

That is, assuming you're not just pretending to be this obstinate and clueless.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

You should know by now that I don't "pretend" anything.

Well shoot! There goes that theory!

 

[palerider]

You're hilarious! Really, your lack of seriousness on this issue is a great source of amusement to me. I look forward to your responses each time!

That's good. It never ceases to amaze me, the things they can teach a parrott. I guess when you start with a creature that is not burdened with the task of thinking for himself, you can show him pictures and tell him what you want him to think that they mean and off he goes, repeating and repeating and repeating. Never understanding, but always repeating.

It is just too bad you parrots are so entrenched in your political dogma. It would be good if the side that is telling the truth could get you to repeat some honest science.

You have already admitted that you really don't know good science from bad. You, and those like you have just picked a team and you cheer for them whether they are right, or wrong. They make predictions and you cheer and continue to cheer whether the predictions come to pass or not. And when they drop the old predictions and come up with a whole new set, you cheer all the harder.

My question is, how many times can a trainer be wrong before the parrott refuses to repeat the message? Is there any number of times that they can be wrong at which a parrott says, I am not going to repeat that any more?

Never the less, I am glad that I can entertain you. Here, want a cracker?

 

[palerider]

If researched long enough, I'm sure virtually all of your "scientists" have connections to the fossil fuel industry in one way or another. For example, Tad Murty and David Bellamy are both associated with the Fraser Inst. a conservative think tank which counts among it's funders Exxon Mobil.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107

And I don't even need to search to find that yours are affilliated with special interest groups as well. Special interest groups who, in the past decade, have forked over almost 3,000 times more money than those evil oil corporations.

If I didn't already think that you aren't hitting on all of your cylinders, I would accuse you of being obtuse but honestly, I really don't think that is the case. You are so focused on the 19 million that the oil companies have spent, that you really can't see, or relate to the 50 BILLION that special interests have spent to promote the bad science of anthropogenic global warming. But hey, you feel free to research all you like.

While you are researching, maybe you can find out why you can't find a scientist who doesn't depend on grant money who does support AGW theory. That would be an interesting search wouldn't it?

 

[ilikeboobs]

Organizations associated with, or funded by Exxon Mobil. I think it goes without saying, that anything that comes from these organizations has to be taken with a grain of salt. Almost all of these groups dispute mans influence on global warming, some of them blatantly, in one way or another. In fact, it's virtually impossible to find an individual or organization, skeptical of climate change, without ties to the fossil fuel industry. What a coincidence.


60/Sixty Plus Association
Accuracy in Academia
Accuracy in Media...
World Climate Report

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Just like it's hard to find an individual or organization, pushing global warming, that isn't funded by the government or the UN...

 

[palerider]

Just like it's hard to find an individual or organization, pushing global warming, that isn't funded by the government or the UN...

19 million dollars from exxon. 50 billion from special interests promoting the flawed science of anthropogenic global warming for no other reason than to gain the political upper hand over capitalists countries.

 

[Popeye]

19 million dollars from exxon. 50 billion from special interests promoting the flawed science of anthropogenic global warming for no other reason than to gain the political upper hand over capitalists countries.

You've got some real denial going on, don't you?

We're talking idealism versus the greed of Exxon. Do you dispute the fact that Exxon has a vested interest in downplaying the dangers of global warming? In fact, if not for greed, maybe you could tell me, why are they funding global warming skeptics at all?

Exxon has been using the same tactics the tobacco industry used to dispute the effects of secondhand smoke. Do you have some bought and paid for "scientists" to dispute the health risks of smoking as well?

 

[palerider]

We're talking idealism versus the greed of Exxon.

Most of the worst crimes against humanity ever perpetrated have been in the name of idealism and as such, anything that is done in the name of idealism is immediately suspect as both dishonest and dangerous.

Do you dispute the fact that Exxon has a vested interest in downplaying the dangers of global warming? In fact, if not for greed, maybe you could tell me, why are they funding global warming skeptics at all?

It is to the oil companys' benefit to have government mandates on petroleum fuels. It takes far more crude oil to make a gallon of "clean burning" fuel than it does to make standard fuel and the refining expense is far greater as well. Perhaps the reason they have only coughed up 19 million in the past decade is because they have come to realize that there is more money in global warming. Surely, you don't think it is coincidence that they have only spent 19 million vs the competition's 50 billion do you? Do you not think that if they had a real profit motive in skepticism, that they would have let the competition outspend them nearly 3,000 to one? Are you that naive?